Unpopular Positive Opinion Challenge

[Dukefrukem]

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009) - 34%

Another good one.

[Grouchy]

Out of other people's choices, I really like The Counselor and Only God Forgives as well.

[Dukefrukem]

The Chronicles of Riddick is a good one.

[Grouchy]

Oh, I'm a fan of The Ninth Gate (43%).

[Skitch]

Oh, I'm a fan of The Ninth Gate (43%).

Polanski's best! (imo)

[baby doll]

Polanski's best! (imo)

In my opinion:

1. Rosemary's Baby (1968)
2. Chinatown (1974)
3. The Ghost Writer (2010)
4. Bitter Moon (1992)
   
5. Repulsion (1965)
6. What? (1972)
7. The Tenant (1976)
8. Vénus Ã* la fourrure (2013)
   
9. The Tragedy of Macbeth (1971)
10. The Pianist (2002)
11. The Ninth Gate (1999)
12. Cul-de-sac (1966)
13. Tess (1979)
14. Knife in the Water (1962)
15. Carnage (2011)
16. The Fearless Vampire Killers or: Pardon Me But Your Teeth Are in my Neck (1967)

[Skitch]

[*]The Ghost Writer (2010)

This excellent film doesn't get enough attention.

[megladon8]

Oh, I'm a fan of The Ninth Gate (43%).

Oooo yes that’s a great pick.

[Mr. McGibblets]

I was sure Ocean's Twelve would qualify, but it's got a 55% rating.

I looked up movies that I gave an 8/10 or higher grade to and found three that qualify (I probably missed some).

Cassandra's Dream (46%)
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (44%)
Elizabethtown (29%)

[Dukefrukem]

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (44%)

Yikes. Gotta ask. What do you see in this one?

[Skitch]

Yikes. Gotta ask. What do you see in this one?

Is that the third one? If so I'm in. Third one is my favorite of the series.

[StanleyK]

Damn, I couldn't find a single one. There's plenty of acclaimed movies I dislike but apparently none the other way around. The closest is The Fountain at 52%, but that one's fairly well-liked, and I wasn't an adult when it came out anyway.

[DavidSeven]

Two pages deep and not one mention of Speed Racer?

Match-Cut, you’ve changed.

[TGM]

Two pages deep and not one mention of Speed Racer?

Match-Cut, you’ve changed.

I was honestly a little surprised this hadn’t been mentioned yet too.

[transmogrifier]

I was honestly a little surprised this hadn’t been mentioned yet too.

Match Cut has grown up and realized that it is just cotton-candy nothingness

[Skitch]

Match Cut has grown up and realized that it is just cotton-candy nothingness

I assumed we all finally agreed it was the bomb diggity.

[Milky Joe]

I loved The Mummy (2017), currently sitting at 16%.

[Skitch]

I loved The Mummy (2017), currently sitting at 16%.

I'm with ya!

[Irish]

I thought "The Strangers," from 2008, was one of the best American horrors of the last 20 years and it's sitting at 48%.

You could probably cheese the contest by focusing on horror made before ~2013 or so, before the genre became really popular and mainstreamed and oddly commercial, somewhere between "Babadook" and "Get Out." Mainstream critics never really "got" it (and still don't watch enough of it).

[Irish]

Which reminds me, RT is a terrible gauge for this because they allow anyone to rate old movies at any time. Eg:John Carpenter's "The Thing" bombed and received terrible reviews on its release but of course now its reputation is much improved and RT rates it a 82%.

I always thought this mechanic was a shame, because the site coulda offered a perfect snapshot to critical reactions of one period or another and simply doesn't.

[Skitch]

Which reminds me, RT is a terrible gauge for this because they allow anyone to rate old movies at any time. Eg:John Carpenter's "The Thing" bombed and received terrible reviews on its release but of course now its reputation is much improved and RT rates it a 82%.

I always thought this mechanic was a shame, because the site coulda offered a perfect snapshot to critical reactions of one period or another and simply doesn't.

And also hold critics accountable for shitty takes.

[baby doll]

Which reminds me, RT is a terrible gauge for this because they allow anyone to rate old movies at any time. Eg:John Carpenter's "The Thing" bombed and received terrible reviews on its release but of course now its reputation is much improved and RT rates it a 82%.

I always thought this mechanic was a shame, because the site coulda offered a perfect snapshot to critical reactions of one period or another and simply doesn't.

I think it's flawed reasoning to suggest that a Tomatometer reading that only counted contemporary reviews would provide an accurate snapshot of a film's critical reputation at the time of its release. If, for example, half of reviewers in 1968 thought 2001 was a mess and the other half thought it was brilliant, that's not going to be reflected in a 50% rating.

[Irish]

I think it's flawed reasoning to suggest that a Tomatometer reading that only counted contemporary reviews would provide an accurate snapshot of a film's critical reputation at the time of its release. If, for example, half of reviewers in 1968 thought 2001 was a mess and the other half thought it was brilliant, that's not going to be reflected in a 50% rating.

I dunno, sorta? It'd be a helluva lot closer than allowing critics to post new ratings 50 years after the fact, though.

(Shit, tbh, I don't care about ratings. I'd just like a centralized database where I can look up & read what every major film critic thought of "Petulia" or "Wild in the Streets" or "Rosemary's Baby" or "Carrie" without decades of crazed fandom and accumulated appreciation layered on top.)

[baby doll]

I dunno, sorta? It'd be a helluva lot closer than allowing critics to post new ratings 50 years after the fact, though.

(Shit, tbh, I don't care about ratings. I'd just like a centralized database where I can look up & read what every major film critic thought of "Petulia" or "Wild in the Streets" or "Rosemary's Baby" or "Carrie" without decades of crazed fandom and accumulated appreciation layered on top.)

It would be helpful if Rotten Tomatoes let you search for reviews from a particular time period, but then the site is designed for consumerism, not scholarship, and most of the major pre-internet reviewers aren't archived there anyway: no James Agee, no Manny Farber, no Dave Kehr. The earliest J. Hoberman review recorded on the site is from 2000 and the link doesn't even work, though I did find the first few paragraphs of Andrew Sarris' report on the 1970 New York Film Festival as the Voice reposted them a few years back (the man sure liked his puns). Not to mention that the site only indexes reviews in English.

[Irish]

the site is designed for consumerism, not scholarship

Sure. But that doesn't prohibit me from wanting something different --- or wishing that the site took a more rigorous approach to what it's already doing (eg: by cataloging reviews from first publication and limiting new ratings on old movies, for instance.)